全球现代性的危机读后感100字
《全球现代性的危机》是一本由[美] 杜赞奇著作，商务印书馆出版的精装图书，本书定价：65.00，页数：395，特精心从网络上整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
《全球现代性的危机》精选点评：
●流转历史，对话式超越，可持续发展
●这书里的概念比较多，杜赞奇尝试在概念上进行创新，但是却感觉他把理论愈来愈复杂化了，理论运用走火入魔了
●越往下读orientalism的味道越重。这类试图找出通行于东西，或是超越东西文明的思想的书最后往往又从东西方的鸿沟中刨出几箱土。提到的各种理论仍是要好好读的，可是对于网络，ngo，希望的力量，未免过于乐观了一些。。。
●向来热衷制造概念的杜赞奇，在本书中彻底抛开史料实证的限制，凌空蹈虚，怪力乱神。两条轴线:流转历史+超越性。前者是复线史观的升级版，融合了全球史观、文化混杂、理论旅行的多重意味;后者沿袭了韦伯以降历史社会学的重要命题，将其进一步东方化、神秘化。初定名“亚洲传统与可持续性”更加贴合实际内容，“全球现代性”的范畴太过宽泛，作者欠缺国际政治经济学的知识背景，只好将重要的全球变迁归结到大小写文化、地方性宗教等自己熟悉但实则次要的问题上论述。另外，作者尝试将古今东西的理论资源融为一炉，但实在力有不逮，变成了人名和概念的拼盘。语言晦涩，翻译已很努力，但仍有不少错误，包括景军、王晓明等国内学者出口转内销后的名字都译错，多半是编校的问题。本书毁誉参半，但不至于跌到6分以下，打四星平衡分数。
●一贯的不太好读。个人总结性著作。没有太明显的突破性。有些概念把握不准确。
●說伊斯蘭的激進主義消解了冷戰格局，這說法新穎。
●关注是新的：可持续发展，方式是新的：超越，但料子还是老的。在民族主义vs普世主义问题中提出后者的退潮让位于民族主义、消费主义，但也带来了危机，比如环境，要超越它就要谈可持续发展。但问题是“恢复可持续发展的替代性来源”预设了这种恢复，也把替代和被替代范畴化了，即便二者是否有这种分隔也要质疑一下。
●打四星提一下分。本书责编极其不认真，错字漏字重字一大堆。翻译还好，杜赞奇的理论梳理能力极其出色，对“超越”和“流转”的讨论也颇具启发性，只是全书结构与内容看起来略欠集中，但这或许也正照应着他所称引的怀特海的“涌现”理论罢。
●看不懂但是觉得挺牛逼。唯一能理解的是在现代环境危机下我们也许能回到过去寻找解决的方法，例如天人合一等等亚洲思想，这与现代理念是相悖的，也就是所谓的循环的历史。然后超越性我觉得可能代表着一些超自然的事物，听起来很玄乎，却能驱使人们去做一些符合自然规律的事情。
●读着总觉得是#一带一路学#。粗略来讲分为两条线：把轴心时代讨论中的“超越性”概念拓宽到现代性讨论中，从而导出更加多元的现代性；历史要素的流转则哺育了亚洲的“超越”过程。收结于对民族国家主权叙事的批判，认为它是全球危机的源头。高屋建瓴得有些故弄玄虚，经验分析冗长而虚弱。
《全球现代性的危机》读后感(一)：论一篇文章怎么变成一本书！重要的事情说N遍
关于读书：本人最认真一次，记笔记记了10页，两天磕完。
关于内容：一开始读：好牛逼的概念 “超越”和 “流转”。 读到中段：怎么又又又“流转” 又“超越”了。读到后段： 这不是屁话么………比如人饿了要吃饭，消耗能量，拉屎，排泄干净又饿了这样一个循环，如果用杜赞奇的语言就该这样说：每个人心中都有一个超越的期望（吃饱）这是对当下人体内容物的不满（饿）或者批判，渴望通过自身推动去达到一个理想的乌托邦状态（吃饱），乌托邦作为终点始终在刺激着人们，但这种状态总会被一些意外所牵扯（吃撑了）而打破这种向前的超越，同时单向的超越被流转的力量（拉屎）所阻拦又循环到了终点（饿）如此往复，人类的历史就是在超越和流转间逐步展开。
关于文章结构： 一样的内容，引言总体说一遍，章节介绍总体一遍，每章第一段章节总体来一遍，章节主体说一遍，每章结束总结一遍，所有章节结束总结一遍。 类似的内容说三遍你就有一本书啦！ 各位博士知道字数怎么凑了吗！？
关于思想：实话实说看完三天我就都忘啦！可见思想可能没有？ 或者我太肤浅没看懂。但是关于分析中国为什么没有宗教这一点我觉得还是蛮有启发的，其他的都不记得了，毕竟作者也是在重复重复，罗列罗列。
《全球现代性的危机》读后感(二)：亞洲傳統宗教能拯救今天的生態危機？杜贊奇的說法實在不很是有吸引力⋯⋯
（本文作者董牧孜，2018年4月原載香港01哲學頻道，原標題為《歷史學家杜贊奇：以循環歷史挑戰發展主義》）
熟悉印度裔歷史學家、漢學家杜贊奇的人，必定知道他的代表作《從民族國家拯救歷史》（Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China）。這本書提出以「複線的歷史」來取代我們習以為常的線性、進步的歷史觀，而後者正是近代民族國家普遍的史觀：它接受了西方啟蒙的現代化敘事，要求建構一種從遠古到現代、發展進步的民族主體。杜贊奇的創見在於對西方中心的現代性及民族國家觀念說不，並呼籲研究歷史話語的形成過程，看清歷史話語如何攝取或隱匿與其世界觀不相適應的錯綜複雜的歷史現實，在主流話語系統之外尋找歷史性。
近些年，杜贊奇以亞洲視野重審全球現代性的研究野心，又轉向了全球生態危機這一領域。這種轉變體現在他的著作《全球現代性的危機：亞洲傳統和可持續的未來》（The Crisis of Global Modernity: Asian Traditions and a Sustainable Future）之中，大抵是以靈性的、宗教的亞洲智慧來回應全球生態危機問題。這本書的英文版出版於2014年，簡體中文版於去年新出版。2018年4月10日，杜贊奇圍繞這本書的核心概念，透過Skype為香港中文大學文化及宗教研究系主辦的Environmental Humanities in Asia: Ecological Crisis and Cultural Responses國際工作坊做了題為《神聖的生態：當代亞洲的可持續性與超越》（Sacred Ecologies: Sustainablility and Transcendence in Contemporary Asia）的主題演講。
這已不是杜贊奇第一次就全球現代性與環境問題做主題演講，而他的說法在當今生態研究之中亦是相當流行。簡言之，即重新思考亞洲的傳統宗教及思想資源，如何在經歷現代性演化之後仍保留著超越（西方）現代性的可能。
我們很難指望由主權國家來解決全球性的生態問題——因為在民族主義面前，國家利益（諸如GDP競逐、資源控制）總是高於整個地球的利益，去年特朗普宣佈退出巴黎協定便是一例。正是西方現代性造就的發展消費主義，以及民族國家主導的全球競爭動員，導致當今環境可持續性的岌岌可危。現代普世主義是失敗的，當主權國家取代此前的宗教，成為今人眼中最高的普世超越性時，我們只會陷入部落主義式的資本主義競賽。
在杜贊奇看來，超越性（transcendence）與循環歷史（circulatory history）兩個概念是處理全球環境問題的關鍵。何謂「超越」？在亞洲思想中，不可侵犯的、神聖的道德空間可以是宗教的，也可以是非宗教的，普通人身上也能出現神聖性。地球的持續性發展也可以是一種超越性的理想。當今正是非西方國家崛起的時代，杜贊奇認為，恰恰在亞洲傳統思想諸如儒學、佛學、印度教之中，我們發現了迥異於西方理解個人、生態及其整體關係的路徑。
杜贊奇認為，從前現代到當代一直有另類文明能量的存在，一種超越性的遺產貫穿了亞洲的傳統，也體現在當今世界宗教社會的轉型中。而這正因為歷史本身不是線性的，而是循環的，這種循環歷史是我們整個星球所共享的遺產，尤其在面對全球環境危機時更是如此。因此，他強調在國家和跨國組織之外，那些宗教和非宗教的綠色公民社會及壓力團體對環境保護發揮了重要作用——不論是泰國等東南亞國家的佛教環保運動和「活躍森林僧侶」運動，還是釋證嚴法師領導的中華佛教團體，以及中國道教協會的風水林和環保論壇，乃至當今流行於中產階級中的靈修活動。
對於杜贊奇而言，這些非現代環保意識之下的傳統宗教活動帶來了環保的不同可能性，紓解了資本主義和民族主義的聯手對這個星球所造成的生態破壞。然而筆者認為，真正的問題在於，我們真的能將環境正義問題的解決寄望於此類所謂靈性的、超越性的泛亞洲宗教傳統之中嗎？所謂對話式的、回歸傳統的超越性，難道不也是鑲嵌於資本主義的規則下，并受限於現實條件下亞洲各主權國家差異的政治經濟與錯綜關係之中嗎（或乾脆如羅貴祥所說「沒有亞洲這東西」）？
《全球现代性的危机》读后感(三)：区域、网络与公共资源治理
《全球现代性的危机》读后感(四)：从超越性入手
原刊于Review of Religion and Chinese Society
[书中引用的保罗·克利 (Paul Klee) 的画作《新天使》( Angelus Novus ) 也可以看作是本书的隐喻：调和理性、（道德）超越性以及历史（时间）和地理（空间）的概念（说白了就是改用东方概念），不过对文明流转而非线性发展的理解很有趣。杜赞奇对超越性（transcendence）的定义是 “a way of human knowing based upon an inscrutable yearning or calling with several attributes that coexist in varying degrees,” “a critique of existing conditions that draws on non-worldly moral authority” (6).]
This book, extremely rich and diverse in content and vast in scale, is an impressive work on global history and the question of transcendence in facing a global crisis. It encompasses themes of philosophy, history, literature, and art, and the reader feels that he or she is learning something new on every page.
Duara’s ultimate objective, as he elegantly demonstrates, is to reconcile reason and transcendence, history and space. He has done so by introducing “a less radical, dialogical transcendence” (6) that has pervaded most Asian societies in order to come to terms with the looming crisis of planetary sustainability (1), which he recognizes as one of the challenges that the world is currently facing, now that the model for modernity and modernization based on conquest of nature and driven by increasing production is no longer sustainable (279). The other two challenges that Duara identifies are the rise of non-Western powers and the loss of authoritative sources of transcendence (1).
Duara defines “transcendence” not only as a source of nonworldly moral authority that can speak back to power, or a temporality from the present that also has universal applicability, but as “a way of human knowing based upon an inscrutable yearning or calling with several attributes that coexist in varying degrees,” “a critique of existing conditions that draws on non-worldly moral authority” (6). To this extent, he contends that throughout much of human history both tendencies largely coexisted in all religions (9), although he distinguishes monotheistic religions of the Book that are characterized by a powerful dualism of the saved and the damned and an injunction to proselytize (in the later Abrahamic faiths) (8), and traditions of transcendence that coexist with polytheistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic traditions through hierarchical modes of accommodation (9).
This book, then, sets out to address the “hybrid product of circulation” that represents the more transgressive and even challenging dimension of transcendence in contemporary Asia (9). Beginning with Gandhi’s challenge to the Leviathan of modernity and the Gandhian environmental movement in India, the forest monk movements in Thailand, and the Buddhist group Ciji in Taiwan, Duara presents a picture of Asian religious groups opposing to alleviate the devastation being perpetrated on the planet by the combined assault of capitalism and nationalism.
Duara traces this movement to the 1980s, when two types of environmental movements began to emerge across the world. One type was what may be called the postmaterialist or postindustrial movement of the affluent world, for instance, the American ideal of wilderness protection, lifestyle changes, and sacralization of the wilderness. The second type was among more marginal populations struggling to preserve their livelihood (40). Ecological issues, he finds, are associated with decentralized and democratic decision-making (41). Local religions mutated into forms sanctioning the conservation and protection of natural resources and recovered their transcendent role, not necessarily by evoking a universalist view, but by invoking a moral authority that is higher than the worldly powers and their ideal of progress (ibid.).
Religions, then, played a significant role in framing, empowering, and enhancing the solidarity of local environmental movements (42). At the same time, global connections—enabled by historical circumstances—allowed religious ideas from Asia to influence the West, and were then reinterpreted and brought back to Asia as a form of modernity. American transcendentalists Henry Thoreau and Emerson read Raja Rammohun’s translations of the Upanishads and the principal Vedas, and they were familiar with Roy’s exchange with British Unitarians (53); hence they developed the concepts of the self-cultivation of the powers of the mind and the consciousness of ultimate reality (54). Thoreau published Civil Disobedience, which influenced Tolstoy as well as the worldwide spirituality movement, including Gandhi, who adopted the phrase “civil disobedience” as the English term for this own project. This incident demonstrates what Duara refers to as the circulation of the history of ideas and practices.
As he puts it, “histories are not the exclusive property of a single community or entity since questions of sovereignty and identity are closely linked to history” (54). The historical profile of a community is crisscrossed and shaped—for better or worse—by interactions on numerous scales with circulatory networks and forces. Benedict Anderson has popularized Walter Benjamin’s conception of “empty, homogenous time” as the temporality of nations operating in a globally unified time-space (at least for nationalists and nation-makers). In this way, Anderson drew attention to alternative conceptions of temporality. Time is understood not only as a given, linear, abstractly measured and neutral passage filled by activity but also in terms of the ways in which it is constituted through different social practices and by human experience (55).
Here we move toward a crucial concept in this book: time. Paul Ricoeur regards time as it appears to humans, in particular, as apprehended through narratives. In this respect, structuralism contends that historical narratives can also be picked up, developed, or improvised in other spaces and time with real effects. They are thus a political resource by means of which different groups seek to specify which potentials and resources are to be realized by whom and toward what future (56–57). Therefore, as Duara points out, when a history is contested the narrative is often simultaneously altered or inflected. Historicity, conceived as narratives of power, is, among other things, a human mode of responding to this openness to time (59).
Duara next turns to cosmological and historical time in relation to the paradoxical development of time-space, which is relatively unbounded (61). Modern disenchantment and global space-time constitute new regimes of eternity and authenticity, and Duara refers to a painting by Paul Klee and Water Benjamin’s analysis of it to illustrate this point. In Angelus Novus, Klee portrays what Benjamin interpreted as an angel of history who looks backward while a storm is blowing from paradise—the storm that we call progress, as Benjamin famously wrote (68–70). Authenticity may be seen as this same angel telling us that we have salvaged something essential about us that will carry us through to our destiny at the end of history (68). However, this timeless essence produces identity politics, which provides the basis for historical unity and other claims for nationalism. The advent of nationalism as a world ideology from the late nineteenth century onward tended to identify sovereignty solely within the people and culture of the primordial nation. Sustaining such an immanent and internalist conception of sovereignty presupposes a misrecognition of the systemic or wider source and impetus of many national developments, and of the ideas, techniques, and practices of nation formation. Nations have been constituted by norms and practices deriving not only from the system of nation-states but also from a “world-culture” that has accompanied the system since the late nineteenth century (100). In “The Historical Logic of Global Modernity,” Duara proposes a critical dimension of globalization of the nation-state, namely, the relatively unacknowledged or unreflexively adoption of global norms through which nations have been effectively recognized in the system (101).
Duara goes on to elucidate the radical (dualism) and dialogical (plural, polytheistic, and pantheistic) notions of transcendence and the “traffic” between secularism and transcendence in Asia (Sinosphere Indosphere, Japan, Vietnam, and Korea), in contrast to the confessional communities and nation-states of Europe. He also shows how leading thinkers in Asia have sought to create an alternative cosmopolitan drawn from both Asian traditions and universalism to compete with Western, Christian ideologies of civilization and the self (chaps. 5–7).
Overall, this book recognizes transcendence not only as something greater that enables us to do what we do as humans, but also as an awareness that history is not simply the project of human activities but a coproduction with the natural world and with “eternal objects” beyond our understanding (154). Duara urges us to acknowledge these limits not by adopting irrational postures but by cultivating a renewed attitude of humility regarding the limits of human activity (155).
Admittedly, although Duara has done a great job covering the history of politics and religion and the complex religious exchanges in the vast land of Asia, the bulk of his work still focuses on large nations such as China and India. One wonders to what extent the Sinosphere or Indosphere can represent Asia, and to what extent Asia can represent the non-Western world with regard to the question of “global modernity.” However, as Duara calls for an openness to time and a reflexive attitude towards global challenges, readers are invited to ponder these questions during and even after their reading of this book.